The Fiasco of Spartacus

[Vanessa Loney]

Well, that poll is meaningless.

Its quite a negative achievement to revive Tracy Parnell, I mean he is an Oswald did it guy from years and years ago.


Pat Speer and Graves are Ok, and they sometimes do good work, but they are quite conservative in their approach.

I mean, please do not tell that that the Carroll guy is Ray Carroll? The guy who said he had a tape of Mark Lane backing down from him at the Wecht Conference? But never produced it? I mean please say it is not him.

Ya it's Ray Carroll. And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L. He was going to find some after we got off the phone and email it to me. Oh well. I guess he must be reading the stuff over there. (I forgot to ask).

Hello Dawn

Well, I think you've cut straight to the heart of the matter here. We've all seen new information come out over the years and people's opinions on particular aspects of the case have changed. This is not a bad thing, Dawn. It's what scientists do all the time to test their theories and to prove their theories if they don't hold water they dump them and move on.

It might be tough to walk back on a particular theory which is later disproved but I think a more contestible approach only strengthens the research community not weakens it.

No-one is expected to possess perfect knowledge about this case and new information is still coming to light even after 52 years, so who knows where the actual truth will end up. But if we're not prepared to ditch old theories then we won't get to any sort of truth at all.

[Vanessa Loney]

Thanks moderator. Although I can't help feeling the warning about attacks on individuals could have come quite a few posts earlier.

All I'm proposing is a fair debate on neutral ground.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post100336

Let's take this off this EF thread and see what you got to offer Ms. Loney...

DJ

Hello David

Now you know very well I was proposing a debate between Armstrong and Parker on the neutral ground of Black Op Radio, not between myself and you.

Just quietly David I don't think it really matters much what you and I debate. After all, as Mr Di E. has so kindly pointed out I'm a neophyte and my views are neither here nor there in this overall issue.

But I think it's important that the two researchers who are leading this discussion get to debate it. That way we all get to learn something.

I offered to debate you on Prayer Man any time. That offer is still open. As long as you promise to play nice of course. Just a hint, it's not really PC to refer to people as loonies' any more. It really is time to update your insults.

[Vanessa Loney]

What's truly incredible are all the good researchers who continue to ignore Greg Parker's irresponsible allegations. He has blatantly accused Jack White of doctoring an Oswald photo, and no one outside of David, Jim H. and I even objected to that. I guess he is confident that none of Jack's survivors are lawsuit-happy. I'm not an attorney, but that borders on slander imho.

Robert Charles-Dunne is a supporter of Parker's, as is Sean Murphy. They are both top-notch researchers, in my view. What is it they're seeing? As I just posted on the EF, almost everything Greg posts serves to dilute the case for conspiracy. I realize he's obsessed with destroying Harvey and Lee, but to reject all the obvious Oswald impersonations, including Sylvia Odio?

I would urge Jim DiEugenio, Albert Doyle, Peter Lemkin and any other interested parties here to rejoin the EF. The management is different now, and they desperately need new voices of reason.

I beg to differ Don, I think the management over there at EF is very reasonable. Won't there be a bit of tension in the EF lunch room with these comments of yours though? Not very collegiate I must say.


But I would agree with you in asking Mr Di E and all to join EF in order to strengthen debate (although Brian could have a few problems as he's supposed to use his real name).

[Vanessa Loney]

The thing that bugs me about this is that John's book is something like 982 pages of text.

I mean how many of these people have actually really read it? And the accompanying CD.

Maybe about as many as have read RH?

But unlike with RH, there is a lot of valuable information in John's book. To this day, I think his treatment of the rifle issue is the best in the literature. And his 100 page chapter on Mexico City is up there with the Lopez Report and John Newman's work on the subject. And that is just two points among many of distinction.

Hello Mr Di E.

Are you not going to answer my question about a debate between Armstrong and Parker on Black Op Radio? Wouldn't that be the most appropriate place for a civilised discussion on this issue?

[Vanessa Loney]

Why should John waste his time arguing with Parker?

You're right. Anyone who tries to get away with saying Oswald's driver's license was an application is a pathetic troll. And any room that doesn't call him on it isn't credible.


I realize from Parker's response that it is a mistake to feed a denial troll any opportunity to practice his deceit. Armstrong obviously isn't giving the dignity of attention to a pathetic troll. Driver's application - sheesh. The reason Parker isn't credible is because while accusing others of not entertaining other options he ignores that the Oswald dopplergangers seen driving around in cars would need a driver's license. This is why David Josephs pretty much beat him in debate and why the EF deniers have to resort to polls to overcome it. Parker's obviously desperate for attention for his blowhard bully skepticism which equals Lone Nuttery. Last post on this since Parker's drivers application bs and the lack of anyone calling him on it should be enough to convince serious researchers to not take him seriously. There's no way the professionals at the Texas Safety & Highway Dept who were trained to identify those things would miss the difference. Both Armstrong and Josephs are quite safe from this creep.


FYI: I didn't open his sycophant troll link.


.

Really troll' and creep' are allowed on here, mods? Brian, I fear you must have missed the post from Peter Lemkin about not engaging in personal attacks - it's a page or so back.

Still waiting to hear a response on your real name, Brian.

[Albert Doyle]

Anyone who tries to get away with saying Oswald's Driver's License was an application is a troll. I remember the paper card type license I first got when I learned to drive. I think there was a temporary permit paper card they issued while you were learning to drive, but that was only for a few months at best so I doubt it would have turned brown from wear or being in a wallet. There was never any "application" card that you carried like a paper driver's license. Parker simply isn't credible on this and is being allowed to get away with bogus excuses he himself would never allow others to get away with. He's dodging recognizing that the Texas Safety and Highway Department employees were trained to notice the difference and would never have made such a basic mistake. Parker is also ignoring the many witnessings of driving Oswald's including Mr Chester at the garage, the many witnesses in Alice Texas, Mrs Whitworth and Mrs Hunter, and many more. I doubt those Oswald's were winging it in Texas with no license. But Parker doesn't have to worry about this because he just denies them all and says you don't have proof. A very Lone Nut tactic.

The only reason Parker is saying it is an application card is because he's trying to make it fit his bogus Bogard scenario where Oswald, who only made peanuts, was going to buy a brand new car in order to take a driver's test when he could have just borrowed Mrs Paine's. These theories are obviously laughable and would get anyone else laughed out of the room, yet Parker regularly gets away with them. Also Parker contradicts the real witness, Bogard, and corrects him telling him he was wrong about which date it occurred. Once again the motive here is for Parker to make the facts fit his theory. Except Bogard says he remembers it was the 9th because that was the day he had to go out of town. Parker ignores this, gives no answer to it, and gets away with it with nobody calling him on it. The Wayne January Oswald and Oswald who left his wallet and wedding ring was not any Oswald who intended to come back and buy a car in order to domesticate with Marina. Parker is the worst violator of his own rules because his need to deny is so strong.

You're not answering the point Vanessa, which is the real site rules violation here. Your proxy trolling for Parker doesn't relieve you of having to do that.


.

[Drew Phipps]

I just went thru this process in Texas for my kid. You get a paper license when it is issued, good for 60 days. The new paper ones have a pic on them, but they didn't used to. When the plastic one arrives in the mail you are supposed to throw away the paper one, but they don't make you do it. And a Texas cop, or DPS employee, wouldn't fail to spot a fake plastic one from any distance. I suppose the temporary paper one could be easily forged, but it would bear an expiration date. There's no "application card".

[Albert Doyle]

The bottom line is Parker is offering something that is overwhelmingly disproven by the facts. My last post was off the top of my head but verified on the money. The only reason Parker is saying it was an application (I think he means temporary permit card) is because he must make it fit his Bogard theory. But Parker is trying to get away with contending the 6 Texas Public Safety & Highway employees couldn't tell the difference between a learner's permit and Driver's License even though they were well-versed in knowing the difference. Also if this temporary permit explained the Bogard incident then why didn't FBI reveal it? Why did they disappear it instead?

This shows that Parker knowingly offers false information in order to get around evidence he knows he can't admit. This is otherwise objectively known as a "liar".

[Vanessa Loney]

Anyone who tries to get away with saying Oswald's Driver's License was an application is a troll. I remember the paper card type license I first got when I learned to drive. I think there was a temporary permit paper card they issued while you were learning to drive, but that was only for a few months at best so I doubt it would have turned brown from wear or being in a wallet. There was never any "application" card that you carried like a paper driver's license. Parker simply isn't credible on this and is being allowed to get away with bogus excuses he himself would never allow others to get away with. He's dodging recognizing that the Texas Safety and Highway Department employees were trained to notice the difference and would never have made such a basic mistake. Parker is also ignoring the many witnessings of driving Oswald's including Mr Chester at the garage, the many witnesses in Alice Texas, Mrs Whitworth and Mrs Hunter, and many more. I doubt those Oswald's were winging it in Texas with no license. But Parker doesn't have to worry about this because he just denies them all and says you don't have proof. A very Lone Nut tactic.

The only reason Parker is saying it is an application card is because he's trying to make it fit his bogus Bogard scenario where Oswald, who only made peanuts, was going to buy a brand new car in order to take a driver's test when he could have just borrowed Mrs Paine's. These theories are obviously laughable and would get anyone else laughed out of the room, yet Parker regularly gets away with them. Also Parker contradicts the real witness, Bogard, and corrects him telling him he was wrong about which date it occurred. Once again the motive here is for Parker to make the facts fit his theory. Except Bogard says he remembers it was the 9th because that was the day he had to go out of town. Parker ignores this, gives no answer to it, and gets away with it with nobody calling him on it. The Wayne January Oswald and Oswald who left his wallet and wedding ring was not any Oswald who intended to come back and buy a car in order to domesticate with Marina. Parker is the worst violator of his own rules because his need to deny is so strong.

You're not answering the point Vanessa, which is the real site rules violation here. Your proxy trolling for Parker doesn't relieve you of having to do that.


.

Thanks Brian - but this thread is actually "The Fiasco of Spartacus" which probably comes down to a matter of personal opinion on both sides rather than facts. There's plenty of other threads for discussing the facts on Armstrong and H&L etc. And I would invite all those interested to take their arguments there.

This thread was established to discuss the 'fiasco' at EF and includes a discussion on the Armstrong debate at EF (and also contains quite a few personal attacks which I would have thought violated DP's rules).

All I am suggesting is that the Armstrong discussion can be resolved in a more productive way than the current method. But strangely I'm not finding any supporters for that debate on here. Can you tell me why?

Brian, you still haven't addressed the issue of why you are using your father's name instead of your own.

[Vanessa Loney]

The bottom line is Parker is offering something that is overwhelmingly disproven by the facts. My last post was off the top of my head but verified on the money. The only reason Parker is saying it was an application (I think he means temporary permit card) is because he must make it fit his Bogard theory. But Parker is trying to get away with contending the 6 Texas Public Safety & Highway employees couldn't tell the difference between a learner's permit and Driver's License even though they were well-versed in knowing the difference. Also if this temporary permit explained the Bogard incident then why didn't FBI reveal it? Why did they disappear it instead?

This shows that Parker knowingly offers false information in order to get around evidence he knows he can't admit. This is otherwise objectively known as a "liar".

Calling someone who can't post on here a 'liar'? Very classy, Brian, very classy.

How about you take that accusation over to EF and see how you go.